Wow, Jeremy Corbyn Actually Believes Jews Did Not Immigrate To Then-Palestine Till 1945! Let's Take A Look

Last week, Elder of Ziyon pointed out Jeremy Corbyn's ignorance of history:




Here is the text of what Corbyn said:

I was brought up at school being told, um, that Israel was founded on a piece of empty space, and that they managed to make the desert bloom, and they built things when there was nothing there before. Anybody that studies the history of the region would know, at the end of the Second World War – 1945 to 1948 period – Palestine had media, had industry, had education, had universities, had a relatively high standard of living for the whole region, and was a coherent society and a coherent state. It was a denigration of that which enabled Western opinion to be, um, put together in support of Israel.

Corbyn claims that the infrastructure already in place around 1945 to 1948 proves that Jews contributed little to the land.

But why 1945 to 1948?

Let Abbas Know: The Eternal Capital of "Palestine" Isn't Jerusalem, It's Damascus

According to Mahmoud Abbas, Jerusalem is the “eternal capital of the State of Palestine.” Then again, Abbas is the Palestinian Arab dictator whose term in office ended in 2009. Not only do Abbas and the Palestinian Arabs know that Jerusalem is the capital of "Palestine" -- they also think they have a pretty good idea of just what "Palestine" looks like.

Here is the logo of the Fateh Youth Movement. The boundaries of what they call "Palestine" are basically the borders of Israel, except that they also include Gaza and the West Bank.

Not surprisingly, that map bears little resemblance to reality -- not because they are trying to co-opt the State of Israel, but because there was no country called Palestine that corresponds to that map.

Just What Were The Jews Doing in Then-Palestine Before The Balfour Declaration?

Thursday is the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, yet after 100 years people still argue over it and Abbas is still asking Great Britain for an apology.

What did the Balfour Declaration actually do?
And what did the Balfour Declaration recognize?

The second question is no more settled than the first, but gives a surprising answer.

No One Would Call Anyone "Palestinian" Today Without Balfour

We know that historically, there has never been a sovereign, Palestinian state.

But if there has never been a state, a country, called Palestine -- then what did the Arabs call themselves when that territory was under Muslim rule?

In his book, From Babel to Dragomans, Bernard Lewis includes a talk he gave in 2001, under the title "The British Mandate for Palestine in Historical Perspective." In just a few understated paragraphs, Lewis hints at the importance of The British Mandate for the Palestinian Arabs:

What Do You Get The Palestinian Arab Who Has Everything?

The answer, of course, is a necklace.

But no, not just any necklace -- you can get them this necklace, available on Palestine-Shirts.com:

Obviously, this is a very special necklace, as the site itself points out:

UN Acceptance of Palestinian Accession to 15 Treaties Violates International Law

Palestinian Deception and the Unwarranted Trust of the West: The Case of Palestinian Accession to International Conventions

Alan Baker, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Here is the summary of the complete article:

• On 1 April 2014, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed letters requesting that "the State of Palestine" be granted accession to 15 international conventions and treaties.
  
  
• This action by the Palestinian leadership, and the consequent, hurried acceptance of the Palestinian applications by the UN and by the Swiss government, raise serious questions both regarding the flawed perception as to the very existence and legal status of a sovereign state of "Palestine," as well as to the potential implications of what are serious violations of the Oslo Accords and of the very integrity of the international law of treaties.
  
  
• If the UN and the governments of Switzerland and the Netherlands acted in accordance with their legal and moral duties pursuant to international treaty law and practice, they would have determined that the requests by the Palestinian leadership for accession to the conventions fail to meet the requirements of international law.

Efraim Karsh: Michael Oren Misunderstands the Obstacle to Peace

The following by Efraim Karsh is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Michael Oren Misunderstands the Obstacle to Peace

by Efraim Karsh
The Jerusalem Post
January 30, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/3733/michael-oren-peace

Efraim Karsh

For an accomplished historian, Michael Oren seems to have an extraordinarily short memory.

In a recent article on CNN's website, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States argued that in the absence of a two-state solution, "One solution could be a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian population centers in the West Bank." This, he reasoned, would allow Israel to "end the occupation of the Palestinians, preserve its security, and perhaps lay new foundations for peace."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry chats with Michael Oren at Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport, on April 9, 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

But this precisely what Israel did some 20 years ago.

MEQ Fall 2008: Judea Pearl on Early Zionists and Arabs

The following by Judea Pearl is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

Early Zionists and Arabs

by Judea Pearl
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2008, pp. 67-71

Many Arab officials and Israeli "New Historians" describe early Zionist attitudes toward the Arab population of Palestine as dismissive or arrogant. Books and pamphlets from the time tell a different story.

MEQ Spring 2011: Abbas vs. Obama (Maybe It Really Is Abbas Who's Calling The Shots)

The following by Steven J. Rosen is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Abbas vs. Obama

by Steven J. Rosen
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2011, pp. 53-58 (view PDF)

Having sidelined Barack Obama's peace initiative by refusing to return to the negotiations table without apriori Israeli concessions, the Palestinian leadership seeks to secure an international declaration of statehood at the next U.N. General Assembly session in September 2011. This "date certain" strategy, whereby its entitlement to a state will be fulfilled by the world powers, has long been preferred by the Palestinian leadership to any arduous, bilateral negotiation with Israel, which would require painful concessions. The Palestinians enjoy wide support in many European capitals, and they know that the Obama administration is close to their positions on many of the core issues. So forcing the statehood demand into a multilateral forum can entice governments into satisfying the Palestinian aspirations by a fixed date.

The Flip Side of Israeli Prosperity is Not Palestinian Poverty

The following by Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Is The Arab-Israeli Conflict Really About Economics?

by Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky
Forbes
June 26, 2013

Is the Arab-Israeli conflict really about economics? U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently claimed "People in Israel aren't waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity."

This was echoed by New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner, who recently took Israelis to task for their economic success; they have "moved on" from the conflict with the Palestinians which still looms like an "iceberg" in front of their "Titanic."

Presumably the flip side to Israeli prosperity is Palestinian poverty. But this is a harder claim to make.

110 Years of Pictures of Jews Living In The Jewish Homeland of Palestine

Lenny Ben-David writes about The Zionist Message Hidden within Antique Pictures of the Holy Land:

A 110-year-old trove of pictures taken by the Christian photographers of the American Colony in Jerusalem provides dramatic proof of thriving Jewish communities in Palestine. Hundreds of pictures show the ancient Jewish community of Jerusalem’s Old City and the Jewish pioneers and builders of new towns and settlements in the Galilee and along the Mediterranean coastline. The American Colony photographers recorded Jewish holy sites, holiday scenes and customs, and they had a special reason for focusing their lenses on Yemenite Jews.

Daniel Pipes: The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine (1920)

The following by Daniel Pipes is reposted here with permission.
Note: There is also a short version of this article available online.

The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine [Long version]

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Review
Summer 1989

Judging from news reports, one might think that Palestinian nationalism has been active as long as Jews and Arabs have been living at the eastern edge of the Mediterra­nean Sea. And as Yasir 'Arafat rides high since his declaration of a Palestinian state, there is an understandable tendency in the West to accept at face value his insistence that the Palestinians have always sought an independent Palestinian state. In fact, this is far from the truth.

The idea of an Arab state resting between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is, rather, a twentieth-century concept. In­deed, its origins can be traced with surpris­ing precision to a single year — 1920. In January 1920, Palestinian nationalism hard­ly existed; by December of that critical year, it had been born.

The events of 1920 encapsulate the current successes and tribulations of the Palestinian movement. They foreshadow some abiding themes, such as the potential for rapid change and the major role of the Western powers. They also provide insight into the most widely supported but possibly the least successful nationalist cause of this century.

Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Obama Put A Nail In The Coffin, But The UN Buried It

Barry Rubin writes about Murdered Diplomacy: How the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Has Been Totally Transformed -- people keep on talking about negotiations between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel:

But any talk of Israel-Palestinian negotiations, peace process activity, compromise diplomacy, and all that stuff is meaningless now and here's why:

The UN General Assembly made the Palestinian Authority (PA)-ruled entity a non-member state. Many in the West rationalized providing supporting votes or abstentions by saying this would do no harm and make Palestinians feel good.

By taking that step, the UN General Assembly has derailed peace talks even more efficiently than Obama did when he made Israeli settlements a pre-condition to talks that Abbas used as an excuse not to negotiate.

Here's why:

• The only way the PA can get real possession of territory in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is by negotiating with Israel and making a deal -- thus defining the state's borders. Abbas's refusal to negotiate with Israel thus guarantees failure.
  
  
• The PA has demonstrated time after time that it is incapable of reaching a unity agreement with Hamas -- without this a single Palestinian state simply does not exist. This is a key point because historically, international law requires a state to have a single government, in control of a clearly defined territory.
  
  
• In granting the Palestinian Authority upgraded observer status, the UN General Assembly trashed a series of internationally recognized and sponsored agreements, according to which a Israel-Palestinian peace accord was necessary to determine the status of a "Palestinian" state.
  
  
• The UN upgrade encourages the PA’s impression that the "international community" recognized its claim to every inch of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem. This only bolstered their view that there was no need to compromise on anything nor need to reach an agreement with Israel. Thus the UN has guaranteed there will not be any negotiated peace agreement.

Rubin writes that the irrelevance of the issue of linkage is key, what with "revolutions and civil wars everywhere; Islamists fighting nationalists and democrats; Sunnis versus Shias; the conflicts involving Israel are clearly secondary at most."

The Abbas regime has been thrown a bone -- they are expected to now leave the West alone.

And now Abbas has insisted that they should be referred to not as the Palestinian National Authority, but as "the State of Palestine".

Hence, the official Palestinian position: There is no need to negotiate with Israel now or in future, nor is there any need to recognize Israel's future existence to get a Palestinian state with the pre-1967 (Egyptian and Jordanian) boundaries. At last, they have implemented the plan proposed by Amin al-Husaini to Yasir Arafat in 1968 and adopted by Arafat a few years later: Get a state without being bound by any commitments for peace with Israel; then use that state to destroy Israel.

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, the focus turns to the real powder kegs in the Middle East, as Israel waits to see which threats are mere rhetoric, and which are more.

-----

If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestine and Abbas and UN.

Arlene Kushner on Israel's Commitment To A "Palestinian State"

From Arlene Kushner:
January 1, 2013

Did He Have to Do That?

Well, it's New Year's Day.  Knowing both how busy I am (it's a "regular" day here), and how likely it is that many will be away from the computer for New Year's Day, I was not going to write.  But my prime minister's recent statement motivated (compelled?) me to do so.

First, let me wish everyone a happy secular new year.  It is never the wrong time for wishes for blessing and good things.

~~~~~~~~~~

And to the subject at hand:

There has been a good deal of political discussion here of late regarding a Palestinian state -- whether there is a commitment to one, whether it would be good, whether we should support one, etc.

UN Palestinian Vote Proves Israel Is Not An Occupying Power

In their haste to grant non-member observer state status to the Palestinian Authority, the UN and its members may have overlooked the actual implications of their actions.

As Eugene Kontorovich -- an expert in international law -- notes, the UN Palestinian vote negates the claim that Israel is an occupying power:

The truly historic aspect of the acknowledgement of PA statehood is that it contradicts the repeated tropes about Israeli oppression, occupation and apartheid. Statehood is a precondition of UN membership, not a result. There are no “peoples under occupation” with GA “state” status.

"There Are No Palestinians"

According to Arutz Sheva reports that phrase is forbidden--
when you provide feedback to articles on the Haaretz web site, along with racist remarks, foul-language, and incitement to violence.

This kind of approach smacks of censorship. Arutz Sheva comments:

Documents and quotes which support the claim that there never was a Palestinian people are often cited in legitimate debates and speeches by respectable commentators and Zionists (see examples in letter below). The quotes are used to counter the claim of Arab historic rights to the Land of Israel.

To allow for fair-minded formulation of opinions and policy, it is important that access to such documents and quotes remain uncensored. Moreover, limiting such statements colors the dialogue in favor of one political spectrum.

The letter referred to is the one Arutz Sheva sent to Haaretz questioning their policy and providing quotes about the myth of the Palestinians:

To: Editorial Board
Haaretz Newspaper
English Edition
Fax: 03-6810012
Email: contact@haaretz.co.il

Dear Sirs,

I found of great interest your list of guidelines for publishing talkback comments which appear at the end of the article: "I Voted for a War Criminal."

I commend you for guarding "openness of dialogue" and stating that "Political orientation will have absolutely no bearing on whether a comment is posted or rejected."

However, your last criteria for deletion of a comment was puzzling: "Use of the phrase: 'There are no Palestinians' or derivatives thereof." Such statements are beyond the pale of openness of dialogue, according to your editorial policy.

This historical truth of no distinct Palestinian people was articulated by none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir who said:

"There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people, and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."
Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969; The Washington Post (June 16, 1969)

But your readers won't be allowed to consider Golda's remarks since her political orientation on the issue of Palestinian peoplehood is not considered legitimate at Haaretz.

But, it's not just Golda who made the point. Many Arabs admitted that the campaign to utterly destroy the Jewish State unites Palestinians and not aspiration for statehood.

Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said just that on March 31, 1977 in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Would Zahir Muhsein's comment be deleted from your talkback?

Lebanese American Sharon Nader Sloan, Esq. noted in her article "The Big Lie" from 2001:

"…Did you know that for 19 years Jordan occupied and ruled the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? ...All this time, …did we hear anything about a Palestinian state? No, we did not. Why not?
Because their never existed a Palestinian state. And in the entire history of nations, Jerusalem was never the capital of any country other than that of ancient Israel and modern Israel. So how can there be a claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a state that never existed?

[Palestine] is the name of a region -- just like Siberia is a region, not a country. There is no Siberian country, nor is there a Siberian people…

Some may argue that Golda's statement from 1977 is irrelevant today, as she would most probably recognize "new political realities." Now, wouldn't that question be fertile ground for legitimate argument in a talkback between political rivals on Israel's left and right?

But your current policy has disqualified historical truths that would otherwise be voiced by those of a certain political orientation. This, despite your assertion that "Political orientation will have absolutely no bearing on whether a comment is posted or rejected."

Your rule of deleting derivatives of the statement 'There are no Palestinians' does not coexist with your "guiding principle of openness of dialogue." One of them must go.

I urge you to retain your openness, and allow the political right to freely express historical truths which support its agenda.

I await your reply.

Respectfully,

Baruch Gordon
Director of English Media
Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews.com

The last thing Israel needs is the kind of CAIR-style censorship and limiting of debate that is encroaching on freedom of speech in the US.

Technorati Tag: Palestine and Palestinians.

Take The Palestine Quiz

Who Are the Palestinians?
by Yashiko Sagamori
November 25, 2002

A rebuttal:

If you are so sure that “Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history”, I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of "Palestine":

1. When was it founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was its capital?

4. What were its major cities?

5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

6. What was its form of government?

7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?

10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and try and find the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, British pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

12. Have the Palestinians left any artifacts behind?

13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?

14. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

If you are lamenting the “low sinking” of “once proud” nation, then please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over - or thrown out of - the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat by Israel in the 1967Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal through military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza, respectively, in the aftermath of the 1967 war?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less of a claim to nationhood than the American Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel. In my book that is not sufficient to consider them a “nation” -- or anything else -- except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and acceptance of Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant.

Technorati Tag: Palestine.